From nobody Fri Nov 26 18:23:51 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D11A18BEC1D for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 18:23:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4J136K4nYBz3jfV; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 1AQINpde025795; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:23:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 1AQINp2R025794; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:23:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202111261823.1AQINp2R025794@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX In-Reply-To: <20211126180239.rwuaaq3onohjoywv@aniel.nours.eu> To: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:23:51 -0800 (PST) CC: "Rodney W. Grimes" , Ed Maste , FreeBSD Hackers X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] List-Id: Technical discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-hackers List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4J136K4nYBz3jfV X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 09:09:54AM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ] > > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 04:09, Rodney W. Grimes > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > So is the feature model of FreeBSD becoming, oh it gets broken > > > > cause it is not regularly tested, so lets remove that feature. > > > > > > I don't agree with that. We have a large and growing CI infrastructure > > > to regularly test functionality and are continually adding to it over > > > time. But it's important to test and maintain what is actually used > > > and is useful. Disabling C++ support made sense when obrien@ added the > > > original knob in 2000, but it makes less sense today when parts of > > > FreeBSD are written in C++. > > > > > > > You can disagree with my assertion, but I shall continue to assert > > that it *seems* as if rather than adding B O S to the CI such that > > it is not only regularly tested, but continuously tested is the > > correct path forward here. Removing an option that seems to > > break due to not beeing tested (your original assertion) is not > > only false (I pointed out, and do know for a fact that Michael > > Dexter runs BOS on a very regulary basis, infact near continously.) > > and the wrong path forward. > > > > Fix the broken stuff, stop letting stuff rot because you don't care > > to work on it, or because it is not being "tested". > > This is a volunteer based project people are doing their best to try to fix > broken stuff if > 1/ they are aware of the issue > 2/ if they are able to fix it. > > The limit of a volunteer project is how much time everyone can dedicate to it. > The more options we have and more complex it is to ensure that every > combinations do work. Every combination is not at issue here, what is at issue here is the fact that single options if used get broken. B O S catches these, that is all. > > It is interesting how much you are patronizing every one on what should be > fixed and what should be done and how but you are actually doing nothing as an > individual to help here, you can volunteer to fix things at your level you know? Doing nothing, Hum, ok, as usual you attacking the person, without full knowledge of what a person may or may not do (you do NOT have visibility into my world), Dexter would not even be running BOS had I not spent time helping him getting it set up, and helping him get the initial brokeness in a state that the fall out was an approachable task. > > This thread is about the usefulness of an option, and yet noone has demonstrated > the usefulness of WITHOUT_CXX here in 2021. Seems more false assertions, I do believe 2 people in the thread have asserted that they a) use this option and b) find its function useful. > > For any embedded systems the WITHOUT_* have never been enough and there are way > to build a very very tiny viable FreeBSD image in an industrial manner which are > way more efficient that the WITHOUT KNOBS. I am not saying we should stop > providing those, just we should stop maintaining the one that makes no sense > anymore or are very complicated to maintain. Exists, is used, presently works. Does it make sense to remove it? > Best regards, > Bapt -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org